The Coming Evangelical Collapse

[Husker_x]

We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

 

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

 

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

 

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

 

Why is this going to happen?

 

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

 

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

 

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

 

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

 

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

 

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

 

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

 

7. The money will dry up.

 

What will be left?

 

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

 

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

 

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

 

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

 

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

 

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

 

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

 

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

 

Is all of this a bad thing?

 

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

 

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

 

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

 

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

 

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

 

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

 

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

 

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

 

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

 

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

 

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

 

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

 

LINK

 

A Christian with balls. I like it. Brutal honesty is good medicine.

 

I posted this article because 1-it was written by a Christian instead of a heathen like me, and 2-I think the author is right but for the wrong reasons.

 

Expanding on the first bolded point, it is certainly true––at least in my experience and the experience of everyone I know––that most Christians could't tie their theological shoes, but I don't believe this is causing the evangelical collapse. (If anything the Republican alliance with fundies is more parasitically unhelpful as it beleaguers true libertarian conservatism from ever springing up.) Christians who know anything about their bible––say at the level of a reputable seminary––tend not to be evangelical in the first place, but liberal/emergent/what have you. To say that finding out the New Testament was not authored by the people whose names grace each book would lead to a return of a more fundamental faith is a strange and misguided argument. It's the same as saying that more denominations––e.g. more unsolvable debates about doctrine leading to schisms––creates a more robust and unified religion.

 

To the second bolded point, I can only hope that it's the case that the Christian church becomes more charismatic. Nothing would speed its decline faster than to elevate that quaking nonsense in the fertile paradise of the Age of Reason. It's hard to imagine how an author who is presumably aware of the major Christian television networks, which are filled with charismatic quacks and charlatans, could possibly think that they're in any way helpful in recruiting the kind of mind that would lead to a second reformation.

 

Anyhow, I thought this was an interesting article, and the above were my two main reactions to it. I don't know what kind of denominational sampling we have on this board, but I'd love to hear from you.

[Landlord]

I am a Christian (that is, a legitimate follower of the teachings of Jesus, and someone who tries to let God influence as much of my life as possible. Not someone who goes to church on Sundays) and I pretty much agree with your opinion on the article.

 

 

I will say though, that the author doesn't have anywhere near the balls you think he does. He's basically giving his best intellectual reasons for things that the Bible says, or implies (with the right interpretation) are going to happen. If he's right it will be expected for him to be right because the Bible said so. If he's wrong, well, he was proven wrong by the amazing faith of Christians in the world! Amen!

 

 

An interesting article though. The first bolded part is pretty much my biggest indignation. The blind faith, ignorance, complacency, apathy and arrogance of the vast majority of Christians that I know is so painful to bear sometimes.

[bhamHusker]

Sorry, but the death of evangelical xian (and other religions, for that matter) influence / relevance can't happen soon enough. Good riddance.

[knapplc]

Sorry, but the death of evangelical xian (and other religions, for that matter) influence / relevance can't happen soon enough. Good riddance.

 

What have I ever done to you?

[Husker_x]

That's what.

I was okay with it up 'til the part where she messed with Harry Potter. Then it got serious.

[knapplc]

I don't remember being at that event. Interesting.

[Husker_x]

Sadly I do––at least a couple very similar. No speaking in tongues, but an excitable bunch, that's for sure.

[knapplc]

Ah, I see. The broad brush. How very stereotypical of you, and how very boring. Another example of why these conversations end up as just another waste of time.

 

Thanks for performing to expectations.

[Husker_x]

So far in our experience your contributions to religious conversations mainly consist of becoming personally indignant at the thought that someone would have something less than flattering to say about religion or Christianity. Now I know I'm a meanie-weanie, but that's almost beside the point, isn't it? What about the article above, or the Jesus Campers? Care to comment? Aren't they the faithful just like you? Or is there really no true Scotsman?

 

I may be waiting for hell to freeze over, but if you have something meaningful to contribute to a religion thread, I'll be keeping my eyes out. Statistically it's bound to happen as it seems that no matter how bored you profess to be by my religion threads, you still manage to post in every last one of them.

[Landlord]

So far in our experience your contributions to religious conversations mainly consist of becoming personally indignant at the thought that someone would have something less than flattering to say about religion or Christianity. Now I know I'm a meanie-weanie, but that's almost beside the point, isn't it? What about the article above, or the Jesus Campers? Care to comment?

 

 

I can't say that I agree with Knapplc's consistent degrading commments, and I also can't say what his thoughts are on this but here's my take.

 

 

The people in that video, and those like them all throughout the country and the world, are just one side of the spectrum. A lot of the time I am saddened or disagree with the way that they conduct themselves in several respects, and would wish "better" of them, but you will always have people like that. On the other hand, you will always have people on the other side of the scale. Social and science reform and revolution have been impacted by Christianity and Christians in ways so integral and essential I can't even think of how important it's been. Relief efforts, mission trips, charities, and the like would be a shell of what they are today without Christians, or at the absolute very least a similarly based moral standard. There are so many ways, both positive and negative, that the world has been affected by the teachings of Jesus, and to look at and subsequently condemn or belittle Christians by only looking at one side of things is just ignorant. It's always about balance.

[Husker_x]

I can't say that I agree with Knapplc's consistent degrading commments, and I also can't say what his thoughts are on this but here's my take.

 

I can't either, but I was hoping I wasn't the only one who noticed. I don't think religious discussions are a waste of time, and how a religionist could construe them as that is, well, bizarre. People are free to do or not do what they like; but the petty drive-by commentary is irrelevant.

 

The people in that video, and those like them all throughout the country and the world, are just one side of the spectrum. A lot of the time I am saddened or disagree with the way that they conduct themselves in several respects, and would wish "better" of them, but you will always have people like that. On the other hand, you will always have people on the other side of the scale. Social and science reform and revolution have been impacted by Christianity and Christians in ways so integral and essential I can't even think of how important it's been. Relief efforts, mission trips, charities, and the like would be a shell of what they are today without Christians, or at the absolute very least a similarly based moral standard. There are so many ways, both positive and negative, that the world has been affected by the teachings of Jesus, and to look at and subsequently condemn or belittle Christians by only looking at one side of things is just ignorant. It's always about balance.

 

I can completely agree with you there. There is a sharp distinction between a fundamentalist pentecostal and a biblically literate 'liberal' Christian. I don't usually make the argument that the net impact of religion is negative, but that's a secondary question. Very few Christians attempt to defend the morality of the genocide in the Old Testament, but then very few Christians attempt to take their morality from those books either. And for every crusade I can point to, how many small acts of kindness, charity, solidarity, and social welfare have been undertaken by religious people? Too numerous to count, I'd guess.

 

But there is a balance. Hezbollah won't shut up about their charitable work. Charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. The discussion for me isn't, Is religion useful? Even if I tentatively answered yes, useful in what capacity, and do people need to believe something they can't demonstrate in order to get the same moral and societal outcomes? But usefulness doesn't concern me as much as truth. Is it true, and why? Riffing off the other thread, if one can't provide evidence for something not that they think could exist, or might exist, or probably exists, but claim to know exists with absolute certainty, and this view is not subject to revision at any time or for any reason, I find that kind of thinking dangerous. And I can demonstrate that it has led to misery, tyranny, murder, rape, torture, and prejudice all because mortal men claimed they knew the will of the gods.

[knapplc]

I get a kick out of either of you alleging that I'm "degrading" anyone. Pot or kettle? Which do you prefer?

 

x, there's no conversation with you. You have no respect for Christians and it drips from every post you make. You want a respectful conversation, then give respect first. Don't whine that you're being so wrongfully aggrieved, you the poor victim. I about spit out my cheerios when I read that. In this very thread you lump all Christians together with the least common denominator, then have the gall to cry that you've been harmed. Rich.

[Husker_x]

I never claimed I was a victim or was wrongfully aggrieved. (While I'm at it, I'll clear up another one: I never said that Christians can't or shouldn't proselytize, either.) I did, however, state the obvious, which is that my clock is gathering dust while I wait for you to actually contribute something relevant to the thread which isn't an ad hominem. I'm not even sure if I can claim that fallacy, though, because your constant complaints about my motives or demeanor aren't even designed with an argument in mind. They more or less fall from the whistling void of nothingness that happens to be your position. In every thread you either misrepresent or misunderstand what I'm saying, and the above is yet another example. I have never claimed to be a victim of anything. Landlord referred to your comments as degrading. I'd go with annoying, maybe, and certainly irrelevant.

 

If by no respect for Christians you mean I don't placate them or treat them like children, then yes, I suppose you're right. But let me ask you this: how am I suppose to separate you out from anyone else when I don't have the first figment of an idea where you fall on the spectrum in the first place? For all I know you are a Jesus Camper who also happens to like cosmology. Are you asserting that there's a TRUE Christianity somewhere with REAL Christians and a correct interpretation of the bible––as opposed to all the fake or misguided ones––and you happen to be one of them? I'll spare you the trouble of looking: a lot of people say that.

 

So which is it, do you want to discuss religion or not? It makes no difference to me at all, but I'm afraid I have to call your bullsh#t when you say you don't and then manage to make an appearance only to tell yourself what a waste of time it is.

[knapplc]

No, I don't want to discuss religion with you. There is nothing to discuss. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and neither of us are the judge of the other - something you seem to have forgotten.

[Husker_x]

No, I don't want to discuss religion with you. There is nothing to discuss. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and neither of us are the judge of the other - something you seem to have forgotten.

 

Excellent. That clears up everything. I, however, do want and fully intend to continue discussing religion with the people on this board, most of whom seem like intelligent and open people. Whether there's a God or not is arguably the most important question human beings have ever asked themselves––there is something to discuss, whether you're comfortable with it or not. But from here on go ahead and assume that any religion threads I start or post in aren't aimed at you. That should here and forever solve the problem.

 

I am not the judge of you, but I will use reason to judge the merits your arguments. Anyone can spout any belief. Anyone can talk the talk. You have more than demonstrated for me that you are unwilling to, as the good book says, 'give a response to anyone who asks of you' the reason for your beliefs. And that's completely fine. It's always been fine. Where I start facepalming is when you then take an open forum on religion and politics and use the otherwise constructive space to accuse me of persecuting your faith because I question its veracity, function, and morality, and engage in a campaign of irrelevant commentary when you openly admit you have no interest in discussing religion.